Do I have to be a grammarian?
Not at all! If you assign write-to-learn tasks, you won't want to mark any grammatical flaws because the writing is designed to be impromptu and informal. If you assign more polished pieces, especially those that adhere to disciplinary conventions, then we suggest putting the burden of proofreading squarely where it belongs--on the writer.
It simplifies things simply to use fewer categories: e.g., pass/fail or ok/unsatisfactory or / +/ - or ok/strong/weak-- especially for more informal pieces and think pieces--sometimes even for graded essays. This means fewer distinctions to make and saves time and agonizing and student complaints over small distinctions…
But I am not arguing against hard grading. The most efficient way to get good work from students is to expect it and demand it. Since lots of casual ungraded writing can give students a sense that we are not interested in high quality work, there is something to be said for having a graded essay relatively early in the term and grading it with demanding standards--so that they can feel the true dialectic or schizophrenic relationship between writing to learn and writing to demonstrate learning.
Kristin's experiences with grading wikispaces...
I've tried a few different rubrics, but I've found that the best way by far to assess these wikispaces is to conference with students individually. I typically share a rubric with students ahead of time so that the expectations are clear, but I leave the categories broad so that students can be creative and make the wikispaces their own.
When I conference with students, I look through each page while the student is sitting next to me; I ask questions, solicit the student's feedback and reflection, and offer my own feedback. Then, I ask students to grade themselves using the rubric. Lastly, students explain the grade they have given themselves in each of the rubric's categories. About 99% of the time, I agree with their self-assessment.
Not at all! If you assign write-to-learn tasks, you won't want to mark any grammatical flaws because the writing is designed to be impromptu and informal. If you assign more polished pieces, especially those that adhere to disciplinary conventions, then we suggest putting the burden of proofreading squarely where it belongs--on the writer.
Source: http://wac.colostate.edu/intro/pop2f.cfm
How "hard" do I grade it?
It simplifies things simply to use fewer categories: e.g., pass/fail or ok/unsatisfactory or / +/ - or ok/strong/weak-- especially for more informal pieces and think pieces--sometimes even for graded essays. This means fewer distinctions to make and saves time and agonizing and student complaints over small distinctions…
But I am not arguing against hard grading. The most efficient way to get good work from students is to expect it and demand it. Since lots of casual ungraded writing can give students a sense that we are not interested in high quality work, there is something to be said for having a graded essay relatively early in the term and grading it with demanding standards--so that they can feel the true dialectic or schizophrenic relationship between writing to learn and writing to demonstrate learning.
Kristin's experiences with grading wikispaces...
I've tried a few different rubrics, but I've found that the best way by far to assess these wikispaces is to conference with students individually. I typically share a rubric with students ahead of time so that the expectations are clear, but I leave the categories broad so that students can be creative and make the wikispaces their own.
When I conference with students, I look through each page while the student is sitting next to me; I ask questions, solicit the student's feedback and reflection, and offer my own feedback. Then, I ask students to grade themselves using the rubric. Lastly, students explain the grade they have given themselves in each of the rubric's categories. About 99% of the time, I agree with their self-assessment.